Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
They have flaws, but I would call them neither fundamental nor glaring. For example it takes a fair bit of knowledge of the game before you realize the superiority of spellcasters in 3.5. Or an internet connection, but just because someone else pointed it out to you doesn't make it a glaring flaw.
Not exactly, at least in my group. It took 3 sessions for the druid to claim that his animal companion could beat the party fighter, succeed in doing so, and for the fighter to reroll as a sorcerer. Not sure how that constitutes a fair bit of knowledge. All it takes is looking at Core feats and comparing them to Core spells.

And even with all of it's flaws, the systems (both of them) have large fanbases with tons of people playing and enjoying them. You can say that they only get players "because they're DnD", but you don't become DnD by being incompetent, slobbering fools. If other RPGs were really that much better than DnD, then they would be the big name brands. Brand loyalty only goes so far.
This I agree with though. I still love to play 3.5 but it does require quite a bit of gentlemanly agreements and a bit of homebrew.


Anyway, mostly I just want them to pick a single class, say the wizard and actually plan out what it should be doing at what level. Complete it and then develop the rest of the classes around that benchmark. I don't know what they're doing now, but whatever they're trying leaves oddities all over the place that look rushed and poorly thought out.